Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the server loads and remaps the source slide, that repeated inserts against one anchor land in reverse order, and that an approval gate exists. Minor gap: it does not say what happens to copied assets/media or whether a source project without read access yields a distinct error.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the exactly-one-of constraint, then the ordering pitfall and approval gate. Each sentence carries a distinct, actionable rule.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the authoring rules an agent needs (anchor choice, ordering, approval). Slightly incomplete on source-access failure modes and on how the returned placement differs when implicit playback makes a placement internal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates only partially: it explains the exactly-one-of rule for before/after and points to add_slide's anchor vocabulary, but sourceProjectUid, sourceSlideUid, and targetProjectUid are undocumented beyond their names. The reverse-order behavior for a shared 'after' anchor is the most valuable added semantic.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Copy one slide from another accessible project in the same workspace.' It is immediately distinguishable from add_slide (which it references for anchors) and duplicate_project (whole-project copy).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit constraints: 'Provide exactly one of before or after', 'never send copied slide JSON or markup', and 'Call only after approval'. It routes anchor semantics to add_slide rather than restating them, and covers when-not via the no-JSON prohibition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.